Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Women enlighten the foreign policy debate

Allison Smith hosted a CPAC series of
discussions on Feminist Foreign Policy which aired last night. Former Canadian
Prime Minister, Kim Campbell, articulated a reasoned view of broadening the
issues included in foreign from the narrow “masculine” dominated “national
security” issues to include education, health, work with dignity and protection
of the environment.

Co-founder of Foreign Policy
Interrupted, Elmira Bayrasli, shifted the conversation to “a foreign policy for
the 21st century. Citing the many global threats, including global
warming and climate change, terrorism, cyber security, epidemics, and the
growing gap in income, along with the global deficit in girls education, Ms
Bayrasli noted the name of her organization has been borrowed from Madeline
Albright, former Secretary of State in the Clinton administration. Ms Albright
has commented that, because the stereotypical conversation on foreign policy is
conducted by men, the only way to bring other issues to the table is to
“interrupt” these men, in order to educated them on the nuances and the larger
dimensions of the changes needed as seen from a woman’s perspective.

This perspective, originated by Ms
Albright, has considerable advantage over a “feminist” foreign policy, for the
obvious simple reason that it confronts the reality on the ground of the need
to “interrupt” the traditional conversation plus it embraces all people on the
planet, men and women. As Ms Bayrasli noted, it will take all hands on deck to
break through the wall of resistance that stands in front of such a significant
and needed shift.

As an example of the “tokenism” being paid in
public statements by political leaders about including social development funds
in the foreign policy envelop, a professor from Carleton University, cited the
$70 million Trudeau has added to the military budget, while simultaneously
cutting the foreign aid budget. It is the view of many that foreign aid, for
the purpose of lifting up cultures, especially those in which women are barred
from full participation in the life of the community, including the opportunity
to start their own business, must be an integral component in foreign policy.

As the host reminded her viewers,
research demonstrates that the education of women, and the support for their
full integration into the economic life of the community lifts the prospects
for everyone in that community. So, clearly, there is an economic benefit of
considerable proportions to such a policy shift. In fact, whether we call it
“feminist foreign policy” or a foreign policy for the 21st century,
the move away from “hard power” as the primary instrument of foreign policy,
toward a much broader and more deeply penetrating injection of aid seems to
undergird this conversation.

Education, and health care, and
environmental protections, and personal and community security.. as the main
thrusts of an enlightened policy would clearly leave people like the current
occupant of the Oval Office out of the game, and thereby also exclude the
United States from the game.

So, obsessed with the innovative and
creative initiatives of his predecessors, Obama and Clinton, in their foreign
policy that he is likely unaware and unwilling to learn about all the work Ms
Clinton did to fuse women’s issues with all her activities and policies in
foreign policy. This president’s view is not merely blinded by his own
psychotic hubris, it also leaves the world stage open to the Chinese, the
Indian and the Russian governments to fill the vacuum left by the American
truculent withdrawal.

The infusion of the female
perspective into the foreign policy debate, through television talk shows,
including the Sunday shows, is a primary objective of the Foreign Policy
Interrupted organization. And they are seeing some limited success for their
efforts. Reports indicate that the ratio of women participating in foreign
policy discussion has risen from 14% to 22% in the last couple of years.
Perhaps the reportedly large cadre of women candidates entering the mid-term elections
for November 2018 will have a salutary impact on those numbers.

Two of the more prominent women who
appear regularly on American television, Robin Wright and Anne Marie Slaughter,
both have the learning, the experience and the “savoir faire” to commend
themselves to the editor of any public affairs show dedicated to foreign
policy, or the editors of any of the best print organs that focus on foreign
policy. After serving as an editor for Thompson/Financial Post, and appearing
on American television’s top shows, Chrystia Freedland, is now the Minister of
Foreign Affairs in the Canadian government, effectively responsible for two
portfolios that command a single voice: foreign affairs and international
trade.

It has been her steady hand, and
voice, that has provided and sustained public confidence that Canada will not
be victimized by the trump tariffs, threats to NAFTA, and general blowing hot
air.

Already mentioned, Madeline Albright,
has demonstrated her intellect, and her tough spine through both her stint as
Secretary of State, and also in her latest book, Fascism, a warning. It would
be difficult if not impossible to conceive of a single male counterpart meeting
Ms Albright who would have the gall and the temerity to show her even a hint of
disrespect.

Foremost, currently on the
international stage, fortunately for all of us, and especially for the
thousands of refugees landing in Europe, Angela Merkel, another scholar, this
time in Chemistry, provides steady, moderate and courageous in Germany and
through her in the European Union as it faces the impending Brexit negotiations
and the fallout from those.

Another woman scholar, a doctorate in
Russian studies, Condolezza Rice, has served as both National Security Advisor
and Secretary of State under George W. Bush, and although the Iraq war is not a
star in the galaxy of either Bush or Ms. Rice, nevertheless, she did provide
some measure of gravitas and clear thinking to that administration. Similarly,
Susan Rice, served Obama as National Security Advisor, and provided a maturity
of perspective and integrity to each of his foreign interventions.

Nikki Haley, too, current American
Ambassador to the United Nations, is a valuable foil for the machinations of
her boss, as he continuously strives to bring chaos to each and every U.S.
relationship with a foreign power.

There is a current full slate of
competent, even exemplary women who have or are serving in the foreign policy
and international relations field. And that choir will only grow in both size
and competence as their numbers in the graduate schools of International
Relations climbs. And if it takes “interruption” or outright defiance, our
subtle diplomacy, women’s voices and perspective will become an integral part
of the foreign policy of many nations…and the sooner the better.

Noticeable, in their absence, are
both China and Russia, in the profile of women as leaders in foreign policy in
both countries. India, too, seems to have reverted to a male-dominated role on
the world stage, several years after the tenure of Indira Ghandi, as has
Pakistan after the emergence of Benazir Bhutto…followed by her exile and
murder.

Although she has not served in the
state department, let us not forget that the only woman who has confronted the
trump administration over the potential for compromise that Michael Flynn
appeared to be under, was Sally Yates, then Deputy and Acting Attorney General
successively. Her firing, while tragic, only demonstrates how deeply her
submission to the White House impacted the occupant of the Oval Office. Her
courage in bringing truth to power exemplifies the kind of spine so far
invisible from the Republican members of Congress.